Atheists More Irrational than Religious in U.S.A.

[yankee_doodle]

You know, I’m kind of curious. You seem like someone very intelligent and one who respects factual evidence, so I’m wondering if you’ve ever looked up the name of any of the still living people who were cured by what the Church has declared a miraculous cure and contacted them to get the straight facts directly? No Church spin, right from the horse’s mouth. If not, how can you so easily dismiss them with one broad stroke of the brush?

I have investigated some miracles claimed by your church; and they all have one thing in common … absurdity

My overall view of Catholic miracles is that they’re at least ridiculous, if not fabrication.

There are other more tangible things than simply the recollection of someone who thinks they saw something. First hand accounts, written; scientific evidence like blood tests and tissue samples, the same evidence anyone, religious faith or not, would readily accept in a court of law. Many of these defy any known scientific cause, yet they mesh precisely with all those thousands of accounts of personal revelations, mystic phenomena, etc.

what blood tests and tissue samples? There’s not a single alleged miracle that can be proven, because they’re not true.

How do you view all these things pointing in the same direction and simply dismiss them with the wave of a hand?

ingrained mythology has always had a cottage industry supporting and validating it. Millions of people make a living from it …

I’m just wondering why you wouldn’t apply the same kind of critical analysis to these as you would, say, population statistics in Sweeden? That sort of baffles me,

well, let me un-baffle you. I was a Christian, and now I’m not.

and makes me wonder how would an objective observer explain that apparent reluctance on your part to another person? Would they say you are fearful? Willfully dismissive without any just cause other than your own firmly held beliefs that you don’t wish to challenge lest they require adjustment? I’m not sure any of those apply to you since I don’t know you, but an application of Occam’s Razor sould not produce results far off from them. I would be interested in how you would explain it

not Occam’s Razor again (don’t you guys have any new or at least interesting material?). Do I really have to “razor” apart this absurd reasoning every time a new person encounters me here?

But it does say something about how much value the individual placed in the belief. It proves the person either had a very strong confidence in them or was a complete fool.

No … that’s a false dichotomy. If you were never exposed to the right information you can’t be called a fool. If you’re mind wasn’t open when you heard the right information, then you never really heard it in the first place … so you’re still not a fool.

In other words, don’t worry, I don’t think you’re a fool.

If we examine the rest of their lives, one would expect to find other traces of foolish or gullible behavior that would lend credence to the notion they were easily taken in by a peddler of nonsense.

No, we wouldn’t necessarily. That’s a fallacious argument.

I’ve never seen any kind of evidence like that, on the contrary we find people who exercise sound judgment, led sober, serious lives of service to others. They just don’t appear foolish in any other way.

again fallacious reasoning. There were plenty of really smart people who did incredibly dumb things. Does their being smart validate their stupidity? Of course not.

Based on what facts in evidence?

I said there’s no proof of something, you’re saying prove there’s no proof. If you think about it for a minute I’m sure you’ll see how silly that question is

Could you cite for me one accredited, mainstream biblical scholar who holds this view?

you would like me to find someone who believes in your mythology to debunk it? I hope there’s a witty question in here somewhere

This strikes me as self-serving and logically fallacious seeing as how you’re the one spending the most ink in this topic calling it myth. Call it a myth, then claim we can’t sort it out because so many call it a myth? What kind of logic is that?

please elaborate (intelligibly please)

First, is there one or is this a red herring? If there is one, what is the evidence?

you should have looked up the definition of red herring before trying to use it

Pot. Kettle. Black.

hmmm, nope. Just another cliche response to simple logic

 

[josie_L]

Josie, I think I owe you an apology for sniping when you asked about my family. Although I don’t want to discuss my family affairs on the internet … I should have said so in a polite manner …

I guess it’s my turn now:

Yankee, I’m sorry for being rude yesterday, forgive me? You were not in the best of moods but I should have taken into consideration that you had a tough day.

 

[josie_L]

Yankee, remember that Penn and Teller show on the Catholic Church, well, here’s a report of all the lies mentioned in that 27 minute show: newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2009/09/07/did-penn-teller-set-world-record-most-falsehoods-one-show By the way, the list is not exhaustive so check out the original site,themediareport.com/sep2009/penn-teller-lies.htm

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yankee, remember that Penn and Teller show on the Catholic Church, well, here’s a report of all the lies mentioned in that 27 minute show:[urlhttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2009/09/07/did-penn-teller-set-world-record-most-falsehoods-one-show By the way, the list is not exhaustive so check out the original site, themediareport.com/sep2009/penn-teller-lies.htm

First, were their attacks any more ludicrous than Donahue’s depiction of them, and I quote: “Penn & Teller’s Nazi-like assault on Catholicism.”

You probably don’t think that’s absurd hyperbole (and exaggeration) but objectively it is. Additionally, the article is clearly wrong. For example, I quote (from the article you provided):

*Penn and Teller’s claims are simply bogus.

1. Because it opposed a U.N. resolution “that would de-criminalize people for being gay in countries,” the Vatican “seems to be O.K.” with gays being violently persecuted in many countries in the world.*

Hmmm, let’s see:

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Gay rights groups and newspaper editorials on Tuesday condemned the Vatican for its decision to oppose a proposed U.N. resolution calling on governments worldwide to de-criminalize homosexuality.

ca.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4B13QA20081202

The rebuttal of the article (in trying to create a softer perception of the churches opposition to the UN resolution) was:

*Penn and Teller conveniently left out the fact that it is already part of official Catholic teaching that gays be treated respectfully. Look at paragraph 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

[Those with homosexual inclinations] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.*

Nevertheless the Church still opposed the resolution? Many countries (probably most) that criminalize homosexuality impose the death penalty (or other extreme forms of punishment). Does it really soften the blow to homosexuals for them to know the Church went against its own doctrine in formulating its opposition to the resolution?

All he does is invoke technicalities and semantics to defend against the charges made by the show. The most outrageous is his apologetics for the churches institutional culpability in the child sex-abuse scandal; but I wonder if it gives solace to a molested child’s parents to know the church is innocent by its own self-invented technicalities?

Ludicrous

What made you bring this back up anyway?

 

[josie_L]

First, were their attacks any more ludicrous than Donahue’s depiction of them, and I quote: “Penn & Teller’s Nazi-like assault on Catholicism.”

You probably don’t think that’s absurd hyperbole (and exaggeration) but objectively it is. Additionally, the article is clearly wrong. For example, I quote (from the article you provided):

*Penn and Teller’s claims are simply bogus.

1. Because it opposed a U.N. resolution “that would de-criminalize people for being gay in countries,” the Vatican “seems to be O.K.” with gays being violently persecuted in many countries in the world.*

Hmmm, let’s see:

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Gay rights groups and newspaper editorials on Tuesday condemned the Vatican for its decision to oppose a proposed U.N. resolution calling on governments worldwide to de-criminalize homosexuality.

ca.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4B13QA20081202

The rebuttal of the article (in trying to create a softer perception of the churches opposition to the UN resolution) was:

*Penn and Teller conveniently left out the fact that it is already part of official Catholic teaching that gays be treated respectfully. Look at paragraph 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

[Those with homosexual inclinations] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.*

Nevertheless the Church still opposed the resolution? Many countries (probably most) that criminalize homosexuality impose the death penalty (or other extreme forms of punishment). Does it really soften the blow to homosexuals for them to know the Church went against its own doctrine in formulating its opposition to the resolution?

All he does is invoke technicalities and semantics to defend against the charges made by the show. The most outrageous is his apologetics for the churches institutional culpability in the child sex-abuse scandal; but I wonder if it gives solace to a molested child’s parents to know the church is innocent by its own self-invented technicalities?

Ludicrous

What made you bring this back up anyway?

That was not Donohue’s list and did you read the second website which has the full lenght article? And I happened to find a thread about Penn and Teller here at CAF, and it contained this website which I thought (remembering what you had said), would shed some light on the situation. That’s all.

 

[yankee_doodle]

That was not Donohue’s list and did you read the second website which has the full lenght article? And I happened to find a thread about Penn and Teller here at CAF, and it contained this website which I thought (remembering what you had said), would shed some light on the situation. That’s all.

Yes you’re right (apologies). Donahue was quoted by the organization who put out the article (mediareport.com), with his comment depicting Penn and Teller’s rhetorical attack on the church as a Nazi-like assault. But the list that followed was not his list (my mistake, I didn’t read the heading of the article … I’m slapping myself to do penance now ).

Nevertheless, most of the charges made by P&T were factually correct (and the article was wrong in many of its points). They act as if Penn and Teller is a news organization with a responsibility to fairly and accurately report facts. It’s a comedy show … and not an academic authority for anything (at least I wouldn’t rely on the show for veracity in the facts it presents without checking them first). Moreover, they are very liberal and they strongly support gay rights (and I imagine they view the CC as a natural opponent). They probably did take some of the facts they used and exaggerated them for maximum impact; but not only because they might view the CC as an ideological opponent, but also for entertainment value (since after all, like any program, it’s survivability is dependent on its ratings).

You might say less intelligent people might get roped in by false charges launched on a comedy show like Penn & Teller, but I say less intelligent people get roped in by myths of talking snakes and god-men rising back from the dead … so what’s the difference (only kidding ).

Our founders only guaranteed a free marketplace of ideas, they didn’t enumerate a law requiring it to always meet rigorous academic standards?

 

[josie_L]

Yes you’re right (apologies). Donahue was quoted by the organization who put out the article (mediareport.com), with his comment depicting Penn and Teller’s rhetorical attack on the church as a Nazi-like assault. But the list that followed was not his list (my mistake, I didn’t read the heading of the article … I’m slapping myself to do penance now ).

Nevertheless, most of the charges made by P&T were factually correct (and the article was wrong in many of its points). They act as if Penn and Teller is a news organization with a responsibility to fairly and accurately report facts. It’s a comedy show … and not an academic authority for anything (at least I wouldn’t rely on the show for veracity in the facts it presents without checking them first). Moreover, they are very liberal and they strongly support gay rights (and I imagine they view the CC as a natural opponent). They probably did take some of the facts they used and exaggerated them for maximum impact; but not only because they might view the CC as an ideological opponent, but also for entertainment value (since after all, like any program, it’s survivability is dependent on its ratings).

You might say less intelligent people might get roped in by false charges launched on a comedy show like Penn & Teller, but I say less intelligent people get roped in by myths of talking snakes and god-men rising back from the dead … so what’s the difference (only kidding ).

Our founders only guaranteed a free marketplace of ideas, they didn’t enumerate a law requiring it to always meet rigorous academic standards?

If it’s a comedy show than they should stick to comedy, also, it shows a maliciousness on their part when they attempt to smear their opponent with false and/or exaggerated claims.

p.s. How was the article wrong on many of its points? I rather think it was detailed and factual as opposed to the lies (and half truths) spread by Penn and Teller.

 

[yankee_doodle]

If it’s a comedy show than they should stick to comedy, also, it shows a maliciousness on their part when they attempt to smear their opponent with false and/or exaggerated claims.

It can talk about whatever it wants to. If you don’t like it don’t watch it (heck, you’re not even an American, so stop watching our television if it has more freedom than you can handle).

p.s. How was the article wrong on many of its points? I rather think it was detailed and factual as opposed to the lies (and half truths) spread by Penn and Teller.

I did detail how it was wrong on some of its points (the big ones anyway). I’m just not interested enough to spend hours researching all 24 or 25 of its points – gosh (I do have somewhat of a life anyway ).

 

[josie_L]

It can talk about whatever it wants to. If you don’t like it don’t watch it (heck, you’re not even an American, so stop watching our television if it has more freedom than you can handle).

You know what Yankee I think if I were to speak of the U.S. (broadcasted in both my country and yours) the way Penn and Teller spoke of the Catholic Church, you would be none to happy, actually I think many Americans would be livid. And by the way even if it was aired on an American T.V. show, I’m still Catholic and therefore it affects me.

I did detail how it was wrong on some of its points (the big ones anyway). I’m just not interested enough to spend hours researching all 24 or 25 of its points – gosh (I do have somewhat of a life anyway ).

Why then did you say the reporter was wrong with respect to most of his counter- arguments if you haven’t even bothered to look into the matter?

p.s. What did you study in university (I assume you have a degree)?

 

[yankee_doodle]

You know what Yankee I think if I were to speak of the U.S. (broadcasted in both my country and yours) the way Penn and Teller spoke of the Catholic Church, you would be none to happy, actually I think many Americans would be livid. And by the way even if it was aired on an American T.V. show, I’m still Catholic and therefore it affects me.

go for it … I’m not a livid nationalist (I can handle reasonable critique of my country just fine).

Why then did you say the reporter was wrong with respect to most of his counter- arguments if you haven’t even bothered to look into the matter?

I didn’t say most, I think I looked at two of his points (see above).

p.s. What did you study in university (I assume you have a degree)?

Well, long story. First I was in seminary, but wound up being just too flaky for me. Then I figured I’d be a shrink, but again too flaky. So I wound up the only WASP in the Sicilian mob (oh – guess I lose the WASP distinction, I’m now a WASA). That’s been working out pretty good so far. No one suspects (I’m well spoken and fair skinned, and from Connecticut … what a cover).

OK but seriously, absolutely none of the above is true (well some is, but I won’t tell what).

 

[josie_L]

go for it … I’m not a livid nationalist (I can handle reasonable critique of my country just fine).

Are you saying that Penn and Teller’s show on the Catholic Church was a reasonable critique (Oprah would never do such a thing)? I mean if I did something similar to what Penn and Teller did about America you don’t think you would be mad or that I was a liar for conflating the claims I made?

I didn’t say most, I think I looked at two of his points (see above).

You have a very bad memory (but lucky for me I don’t), here’s what you said:

**Nevertheless, most of the charges made by P&T were factually correct (and the article was wrong in many of its points). **They act as if Penn and Teller is a news organization with a responsibility to fairly and accurately report facts. It’s a comedy show … and not an academic authority for anything (at least I wouldn’t rely on the show for veracity in the facts it presents without checking them first).

Don’t you find what you’ve said here to be somewhat contradictory?

Well, long story. First I was in seminary, but wound up being just too flaky for me. Then I figured I’d be a shrink, but again too flaky. So I wound up the only WASP in the Sicilian mob (oh – guess I lose the WASP distinction, I’m now a WASA). That’s been working out pretty good so far. No one suspects (I’m well spoken and fair skinned, and from Connecticut … what a cover).

OK but seriously, absolutely none of the above is true (well some is, but I won’t tell what).

Heh, we have something in common as I too was in the Sicilian mob (and I’m also fair skinned) although my role was secondary, I was the mistress.

p.s. Just kidding for you folks out there.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Are you saying that Penn and Teller’s show on the Catholic Church was a reasonable critique (Oprah would never do such a thing)? I mean if I did something similar to what Penn and Teller did about America you don’t think you would be mad or that I was a liar for conflating the claims I made?

Sure I think Penn & Teller were reasonable, as reasonable as comedians should be (if, after all, they plan on actually making Americans laugh). We’re a tough crowd in this country, because there’s so much entertainment out there. These guys have to hit the extremes, because we demand it and we love it.

In fact, although their tenor was exaggerated, I thought the show was great.

You have a very bad memory (but lucky for me I don’t), here’s what you said:

**Nevertheless, most of the charges made by P&T were factually correct (and the article was wrong in many of its points). **They act as if Penn and Teller is a news organization with a responsibility to fairly and accurately report facts. It’s a comedy show … and not an academic authority for anything (at least I wouldn’t rely on the show for veracity in the facts it presents without checking them first).

Don’t you find what you’ve said here to be somewhat contradictory?

No, what I was trying to say is a news organization wouldn’t have exaggerated its facts to the extent Penn & Teller did.

The facts they used were mostly accurate, yet the way they presented them was not in accord with common journalistic practices (and in some cases they twisted the relevance of the facts, much like Catholic apologists do). But so what, they don’t claim to be journalists (it’s a comedy show).

So no bad memory, just trying to be fair in my analysis.

 

[humble_maid]

So no bad memory, just trying to be fair in my analysis.

You have been anything but fair. Just follow the yellow brick road Tin Man.

 

[yankee_doodle]

You have been anything but fair. Just follow the yellow brick road Tin Man.

I respectfully disagree. Additionally, it’s funny you use an analogy from the Wizard of Oz (I guess trying to advance the notion that we can only have a heart if we believe fantastic myths with no basis in reality).

I often employ the same analogy in my mind when I think of the christian version of god. Like the wizard, when you lift the curtain, you find out it’s all just a myth.

I always had I guess an annoying inquisitive nature about me. When I was I think 8 or 9 years old my parents took me (and my siblings) to the circus. A clown made everyone believe a bunch of knives went through his torso. I knew better, and I snuck to a position where I could see behind the stage (and how they performed the trick). I screwed up the clowns gig by pointing out the scheme to the audience (and the clown got so pissed he tried to chase me down – remember I was a little boy at this point in time. The best part was I was too quick for the grimy clown, so I just made him look even dumber than he already looked … if that was even possible, I don’t think the dude have very many teeth if you know what I’m saying ).

There’s plenty of beauty, fun, and love in life without childish myths to feed our imagination. In fact you can probably even still have religion without all the false supernatural myths (I think the Episcopalians are almost there). Love, charity, friendship, restraint, etc. are all great things. I think I have all these attributes, just without all the hocus pocus. I know Catholics like their liturgy (I can see how it might be soothing on a Sunday morning), and there’s no reason why those type of traditions need to end anytime soon.

Let’s face it, most younger people you see in church today probably don’t believe most of the stuff the church preaches anyway. They’re there to give their kids a moral foundation, maybe because they enjoy the liturgy, or perhaps to appease their parents or grandparents, or whatever. As western society becomes more informed people are naturally less inclined to believe fantastic ancient myths. However, these same people, in many cases, also think there’s value in upholding tradition. The funny thing is these are the sort of people who can maintain a semblance of religiosity in their lives while also being very tolerant of others (and are generally repelled by extreme zealotry). This is because they understand the truth, yet they’re able to balance these realities with the utility of tradition, or the idea that slower transition is more wise than radical change.

 

[josie_L]

I respectfully disagree. Additionally, it’s funny you use an analogy from the Wizard of Oz (I guess trying to advance the notion that we can only have a heart if we believe fantastic myths with no basis in reality).

I often employ the same analogy in my mind when I think of the christian version of god. Like the wizard, when you lift the curtain, you find out it’s all just a myth.

I always had I guess an annoying inquisitive nature about me. When I was I think 8 or 9 years old my parents took me (and my siblings) to the circus. A clown made everyone believe a bunch of knives went through his torso. I knew better, and I snuck to a position where I could see behind the stage (and how they performed the trick). I screwed up the clowns gig by pointing out the scheme to the audience (and the clown got so pissed he tried to chase me down – remember I was a little boy at this point in time. The best part was I was too quick for the grimy clown, so I just made him look even dumber than he already looked … if that was even possible, I don’t think the dude have very many teeth if you know what I’m saying ).

Why am I not surprised by this? Anyways, your mother must have been mortified as you were probably old enough to know better, in other words, you were being a brat!

 

[yankee_doodle]

Why am I not surprised by this? Anyways, your mother must have been mortified as you were probably old enough to know better, in other words, you were being a brat!

If the clowns were diligent their technique shouldn’t have been visible to anyone in the audience. It was – and I pointed it out (I didn’t know then that circus employees are usually felon heroin addicts ).

I guess I was lucky – but I get the feeling you don’t like people who expose mythical schemes?

 

[josie_L]

Sure I think Penn & Teller were reasonable, as reasonable as comedians should be (if, after all, they plan on actually making Americans laugh). We’re a tough crowd in this country, because there’s so much entertainment out there. These guys have to hit the extremes, because we demand it and we love it.

In fact, although their tenor was exaggerated, I thought the show was great.

Is integrity conditional where you come from (did you not say in another thread that we should practice integrity)?

No, what I was trying to say is a news organization wouldn’t have exaggerated its facts to the extent Penn & Teller did.

Well, news organizations do exaggerate the facts sometimes, it’s called sensationalism and/or propaganda (Penn and Teller reached new heights though with their crassness) .

The facts they used were mostly accurate, yet the way they presented them was not in accord with common journalistic practices (and in some cases they twisted the relevance of the facts, much like Catholic apologists do). But so what, they don’t claim to be journalists (it’s a comedy show).

The facts were not mostly accurate that’s the whole point of the article which I posted for you to read in full.

So no bad memory, just trying to be fair in my analysis.

Your analysis is based on the fact that it’s a comedy show which unlike a news agency is not entitled to keeping the facts straight, therefore allowing them to insult and ridicule at will for the sake of ratings. I get it.

 

[josie_L]

If the clowns were diligent their technique shouldn’t have been visible to anyone in the audience. It was – and I pointed it out (I didn’t know then that circus employees are usually felon heroin addicts ).

I guess I was lucky – but I get the feeling you don’t like people who expose mythical schemes?

Yankee, you were being a brat! And I kind of feel sorry fot the clown. And what do you mean by lucky, was the clown planning to hurt you with the audience looking on?

 

[yankee_doodle]

Well, news organizations do exaggerate the facts sometimes, it’s called sensationalism and/or propaganda (Penn and Teller reached new heights though with their crassness).

Again, they’re not a news organization. I take it you’re not very familiar with American comedy … Penn & Teller are tame comparatively speaking.

The facts were not mostly accurate that’s the whole point of the article which I posted for you to read in full.

The first couple points I read in the article you posted were wrong. Yes after that I lost interest (really, like I said I didn’t feel like researching 24 different points; when they struck out on the first one or two … I discounted its credibility).

The thing is the article you posted presented itself as informative (versus a comedy piece), and that’s the sort of stuff where its fair to expect complete accuracy.

Your analysis is based on the fact that it’s a comedy show which unlike a news agency is not entitled to keeping the facts straight, therefore allowing them to insult and ridicule at will for the sake of ratings. I get it.

Basically, yes. If the show stinks its ratings will reflect it & it won’t last. I think the fact that Penn & Teller seem to thrive says more about its audience than its show. Indeed Penn & Teller are just two guys, whereas it’s audience is comprised of millions of American viewers. If we don’t mind blatant assaults on Catholicism, then we probably don’t think too highly of your church. That being the case – maybe, just maybe there’s a reason why so many Americans don’t hold the CC in high regard?

You probably think it’s because there’s something wrong with us, when in reality thousands of your priests raped hundreds of thousands of our young male children. Imagine being homosexually raped by your priest. How do even provide solace to an adult who went through that as a kid, much less a kid whose a recent victim? I wouldn’t even know where to begin (of course I’m not a trained counselor, but imagine dealing with such a horrific betrayal from what a child viewed as their ultimate authority figure). And then for the church to handle it the way it did.

If it were any other type of organization we would have shut it down and put all its leadership in jail. If they were overseas we might have sent the Army to hunt them down. Justice was never served, so you’ll have to excuse me if I think Penn & Teller is the least it deserves.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Yankee, you were being a brat! And I kind of feel sorry fot the clown. And what do you mean by lucky, was the clown planning to hurt you with the audience looking on?

Well yeah probably. If you would have seen the clown you’d know what I’m talking about. Big, fat, gross, drunk or high, with a few missing front teeth and a face that hadn’t seen a razor in weeks. Pretty much the circus was a career move (until he robbed his next liquor store).